Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberta
"Always" and "Never" are both concepts that over-simplify and most of the time are wrong at least sometimes. Certainly with genetics, where the mixing is statistical. (If there weren't variation, selfings and primary crosses would be a lot more predictable than they are) So my suspicion would be that the effect of mitochondrial DNA is sufficiently variable - and unpredictable - in its contribution (just like the nuclear DNA from the parents) that it wouldn't be reasonable to try to break it out as a separate defining factor. The dice aren't random, but when you roll them you still can't be sure of precisely what you're going to get. Perhaps think of this as rolling 3 dice instead of two (nuclear DNA of father and of mother, and maternal mitochondrial DNA) Characteristics inherited from any of these also don't necessarily stand alone - some interact to enhance or suppress or change the net result in the organism. So along with some randomness, the "dice" may also be entangled.
|
This makes sense to me, Roberta.
Hybrid Mode
